The Mormon (folk?) belief in God's wife - speculations on the topic of Mother in Heaven

*

One of the values of having a metaphysical stance which includes the possibility of It Just Is as an acceptable terminus to the demand for causal explanation - is that it ends the infinite regress, and the problems which that brings with it.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/three-ultimate-metaphysical.html

*

The Mormon belief is that we are in some literal sense the children of God. then there is the fact that on earth children are produced by two parents. Further, the Mormon doctrine is that all Men are either male or female from before mortal life - and the complete unity of Man is therefore the dyad - a couple sealed in eternal marriage.

Considered together, all these tend to imply that God the Father must also have a 'consort' specifically a Wife, and also a Father and Mother in infinite regress.

God's wife is termed Mother in Heaven.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Mother_in_Heaven

*

I would classify the belief in a Mother in Heaven as (on the whole) mostly a 'folk' belief among Mormons because it is not required of Mormons, and there is virtually nothing on the topic (explicitly) in Mormon scriptures, and the belief in a Mother in Heaven has from not-much to zero impact on the major aspects of Mormon life and discourse.

On the other hand, belief in a Mother in Heaven is not ruled-out by LDS authorities (as the linked entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism makes clear) - and the reality of a Mother in Heaven has apparently been a belief held by Presidents and other General Authorities (including, probably, Joseph Smith  - if the King Follett discourse is regarded as definitive rather than speculative thinking-aloud).  

*

The Mormon belief in a Mother in Heaven is therefore not so much a matter of revelation or teaching, as a matter of the logical extrapolation of implicit doctrine.

If the principle of parenthood is taken to be universal, then every person must have two parents - including God the Father - ergo God must have a Wife , and must have been the Son of another God.

But the principle of parenthood need not apply to God the Father.

If God the Father Just Is - eternally; then he may also be:

1. The unique instance of a parentless personage; and also

2. The unique example of a being neither male nor female, but one who alone is able to procreate spiritual children.

*

Indeed, if these two things are accepted as part of primary reality (they Just Are); then this disposes of almost all the most significant arguments that Mormons are not-Christian.

Because such a God is the One God - past, present and future; He is primary, unique, eternal, unbegotten, Father of all - and so on.

In sum, God the Father is not just the one God of this universe, but the one God of all reality - and He is unique in his Nature.

*

To assume that God the Father Just Is also disposes of any necessity for positing a Mother in Heaven.

My impression is that the Mother in Heaven is a long way from being central to Mormon doctrine - since it is possible to go for months, or even years, of reading books, articles, theology and journalism about Mormonism and not to come across any reference to Mother in Heaven: indeed, to forget about the idea altogether...

*

My interpretation is that some Mormons have been led, by their metaphysical assumptions concerning the universality of sex and parenthood, to generate theological modifications including infinite-regress of parents (and universes) and  a Wife for God the Father - but these additions have made very little (if any) difference to the actual 'popular' daily beliefs and practices of most devout Mormons.

*

In this respect, it seems that the Mormon Mother in Heaven has developed in a manner opposite to the Roman Catholic conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary - Mother of God.

In the Catholic tradition, the veneration of Mary was first established in the popular everyday practice of liturgy, prayer, iconography, art and devotional life generally - and only later, sometimes many centuries later - were theological modifications (e.g. the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception) introduced to justify and explain these practices.

So the Catholic Mother of God was venerated in practice primarily and long before theory; while the Mormon Mother in Heaven seems to be mostly (for most people) a projection of theological theory; and not much (or at all) venerated in practice.

*

Implications of the reality of Mother in Heaven

(Continuing from: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=mother+in+heaven )

Our contemporary problems require recognition of our Mother in Heaven (wife of our Heavenly Father, literal Mother of us all in our pre-mortal lives as spirits) - who is concerned by the minute details of her childrens' lives - such matters are the crux of things.

Having recognised her reality we surely cannot, and should not, continue to ignore or reject her?

When Feminism asserted that The Personal is Political this was an attempt at total thought-control and subversion by the political (paternal) realm - henceforth nothing was to be exempted from regulation by feminist ideology. This constitutes a theft from the domain of Mother in Heaven; whose concern is not ideological but whose concern is a consequence of the fact that she loves us and wants the best for us.

When ideologies - or even religions, even Christianity - seek to regulate the minutiae of life according to ideas, laws, regulations and the like abstractions and generalisations - then this is a theft from the domain of Mother in Heaven; it is a subversion of love by principles.

(It is ironic, but in no way surprising, that feminism operates by imposing a tyranny of crushing, one-sided paternalism into the maternal realm. Unsurprising because Feminism is rooted in hatred of Motherhood.)

Once we know that Mother in Heaven is real (which knowledge comes from personal revelation) then we cannot rest until we know her (which is not the same as knowing-about her). That is what Mothers want.  Mothers want to stay in touch with their children.

The centuries, millennia, of neglect and rejection of Mother in Heaven is a great sorrow to her, and a constant source of loneliness to us. She does not at all want worship; there is nothing whatsoever here about setting-up as a rival deity to her beloved eternal husband God the Father. What she wants is something altogether different - less public, formal, aesthetic - much more direct, personal and homely.

Mother in Heaven is complementary with our Father. The Father cannot adequately substitute for the Mother. What is natural and proper and fully-wholesome and requisite from the Mother; is totalitarian dictatorship - an iron cage - emanating from the Father.   

A Man appreciates, sometimes even understands, a Woman. But he cannot be woman, he cannot think it. At the conceptual level his truth is one that is external; empathy but not identity. Therefore for a Man or a Woman the opposite sex is necessary for wholeness; necessary and not an optional enhancement; but absolutely required.

Organised religion is necessary; and it just-is innately patriarchal. (If not, to the extent it is not, it very rapidly dwindles to extinction - always and without exception.)

That is a clue - Mother in Heaven is necessary as part of our Christian religion but not as part of official discourse. So our relationship with Mother in Heaven cannot truly be a part of religious dogma, public worship and communal praise, rites, rituals, sacrifices or whatever else may be regarded as more or less necessary for God the Father. She is not far off, but just over the shoulder; merely a whispers length distant.  

In sum, Mother in Heaven does not want our worship; she wants to know, to help, to comfort, to nurture, to teach, to advise, to share our living and to be involved; day to day. Nothing is too small a matter, nothing too individual, everything is significant. She has billions of children - each one of us endlessly interesting, always important.

For her there is no Big Picture - but billions of infinitely detailed miniatures.

Metaphysical implications of the Mormon belief in Heavenly Mother/ Mother in Heaven

*

I have previously written about the Mormon belief in a Heavenly Mother or Mother in Heaven who is God's wife, and mother to all his spirit children (including you and I).

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-mormon-folk-belief-in-gods-wife.html

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-vision-of-william-arkle-question-of.html

I have continued to read and meditate on this matter - and have been convinced that a belief in Heavenly Mother is more than just a 'folk belief' as I had supposed, but is pretty-much canonical in the CJCLDS.

This study of authoritative sources by was what finally convinced me:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8669&linkURL=50.1PaulsenPulidoMother-482bf17d-bbc5-4530-a7cc-c1a1b7e5b079.pdf

David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido,""A Mother There": A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven", BYU Studies, 50/1 (2011)

*

The reality of a Heavenly Mother has, naturally, many profound metaphysical - as well as theological and practical - consequences.

It should be noted that the reality of a Heavenly Mother seems to be asserted mostly on the grounds of authoritative revelation; but also on 'logical' grounds that since gender - being either a man or a woman - is a fundamental, pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal reality for humans; and since humans are made in the image of God and are of the same 'kind'; it would make sense if this principle extended to God.

*

The matter of 'where did God come from?' is often answered by Mormons in terms of an infinite regress: our God was once a mortal man who was spirit child of another God - and so on. 

(This is monotheist in the sense that there is but one God for us - relevant to us, in our part of total reality; and these other Gods have absolutely nothing to do with us at all - except as a source of our God).

*

But another way to answer the question of the origin of God is that He always was.

This is what I believe (or what I choose to believe - since metaphysics are essentially a matter of choice, and stand behind Christian doctrine and not necessarily affecting or affected by it).

So, if God always was; was God the creator, the originator of Mother in Heaven? This would mean that God was the (one and only?) exception to the rule that gender is primary and fundamental - because on this model, God had either no gender or contained both genders.

Or was our Heavenly Mother also eternal - was She always? So that God the Father and Heavenly Mother are coeval and were always divine?  

*

In other words, since the Mormon understanding of divinity is within an also-existing universe with laws and realities within-which God operates; the question is whether eternity contained 'the universe' and one God (without gender) - from whom Mother in Heaven later arose in some way?

Or did eternity contain 'the universe' and two Gods - one male and one female?

I choose to believe the second: that there is no exception to the rule that gender is primary and fundamental to Man - so Heavenly Mother was coeval with God the Father: they existed as divinities from eternity.

*


Note: What about the rest of us? Did we not too exist from eternity? Yes we did - that seems necessary to explain the reality of free will/ autonomy and also evil. However we were individual essences or potentialities with no 'powers'. But only God the Father and Heavenly Mother were divine. They took these essences and we became their children - divine children. The plan of Happiness/ Plan of Salvation is the very long term hope and intention that at least some of us children will choose-to learn-to become 'adult divinities' (if I may put it that way) like to God the Father and Heavenly Mother. Just as earthly children may mature, grow and learn to become like their earthly parents; always children of their parents but now children who are also - in addition - friends. It is a yearning for loving friends to share their universe which motivated God the Father and Heavenly Mother to embark on the extraordinarily complex, contingent, risky and painful plan of salvation and happiness. Within the constraints of our universe it is, apparently, the only way for us to achieve divinity - although we are free to reject the plan, and to reject progress towards divinity and to stop at any point in the path to full God-hood. Speaking personally, I am at this point too selfishly daunted by the idea of suffering the empathic pain intrinsic to full divine parenthood to want to aspire to the highest possible theosis - and would hope to stop somewhere short of that state. But in the course of eternity no doubt this may change.

Reflections on the nature and meaning of Mother in Heaven in Mormon theology

*
Stimulated by

http://www.jrganymede.com/2014/06/09/reason-tells-me-ive-a-mother-there
*

Male and female roles are not symmetrical but instead of a different nature, different in nature the one from the other.

The way the complementarity of the sexes is (in contrast) usually (but misleadingly) described is a very 'masculine' way (suitable to public discourse, by analogy with societal policy arrangements) - for instance that The Man is 'in charge of' X and The Woman 'in charge of Y' (e.g. the idea that Woman is in charge of House and Family, and Man ICH The Family Economy and Foreign Policy) - but this never rings true, even with respect to humans.

And even less so with gods - since any such division seems to invite unification as one being; just as any 'division of powers' tends to collapse into a unity of power.

*

But if the reality is that the complementarity is of natures and qualities rather than domains of jurisdiction, then that seems closer to reality for humans, and more comprehensible for deities.

If one being is of a certain nature and another being of a different and complementary nature - then these natures cannot be united in a single being - because they are incompatible.

*

If you think of the character of the ideal mother and the character of the ideal father - these two simply cannot be combined in a single being; because many of the perfections of the one are opposed to the other.

(Just think of actual examples of the best of good families - if you know any.)

A hybrid mother-father is not, in fact, a combination of mother and father but necessarily something else altogether (most likely an averaged compromise - inferior to either individually; or something which oscillates from one to the other nature - and therefore partakes of the inhuman).

*

This argument is simply at the level of common sense and common experience. 

An androgynous being does not combine the man and woman but is an intermediate average; and neither does a hermaphrodite.

There is, in fact, nothing that combines the male and female in a full and real sense.

*

So, in trying to understand, define, formulate ideas about Mother in Heaven - I think we must beware of trying to impose quantitative symmetries which would not be applicable to earthly humans.

An analogy would be a Great Man - a great political or religious leader, a great creative genius - someone who had personally vastly influenced public life ... Imagine (as sometimes happens) that the Great Man always insists, and with perfect truth, that 'I owe it all to my Wife', that he 'could not have done it without my Wife'.

Now if we tried to understand this truthful statement in terms of the Great Man's public works we would be missing the point completely - that would be to regard the Great Man's wife as merely some kind of servant - yet that is clearly not the situation; it is not what is implied by the truthful statements of the Great Man himself.

Typically, it is not possible for an outsider to know what is meant by the Husband's truthful statement 'I could not have done it without her. The Wife's work is outwith the public domain, hidden from external view - it is absolutely real and solid and yet at the same time somehow covert, implicit: a Wife's work is a mystery in a way that the Husband's work is not a mystery.

My guess is that something very similar applies to Mother in Heaven. The role and function of God the Father is primarily understandable because it is public, outward, creative; but the role and function of Mother in Heaven is solid and yet mysterious.

*

Mother in Heaven's role is fundamentally and intrinsically mysterious but not for any esoteric or difficult to understand reason; but 'simply' in the same way and for the same reason that any Wife's role may be mysterious in relation to the attainments of any Great Man: real and absolutely necessary - yet opaque to the external eye.

*

The Vision of William Arkle - the question of Mother in Heaven

*

I came to the point of love at my inmost heart, and I was glad and at rest, like unto the end of things. But the point was not a point, it was a doorway opening both inwards and outwards. Though I had thought to rest there for ever, I could not do so for long, since my deepest feelings pulled me. So pushing gently inwards I passed through the doorway and went in.

Then it was if I had walked onto the palm of the hand of my God, who had now become my great friend. The palm of His hand was as the most sensitive place in his heart might be. It was tenderly aware and responsive, so that I stopped still in case I should hurt it.

In some strange way the hand was the heart and it extended beyond my understanding in all directions unto the fingers. While the palm of this great hand was content to be at rest, as I was, the fingers had a longing in them to express the nature that was the heart of the hand. The place that had been a doorway had now become like a whole country opened from within...

Then go up to this house. He will ask you in and She will greet you there. Father and Mother of us all, dwelling in a valley of the hills that are not, but are the hand that is the heart always. From this place their spirit never moves and in this place is the measure of all things kept safely. But you may go in and touch direct the uttermost. Then you will have the foundation about you you did not know to need. It remains in the smile there and all things are borne up by it. This is what is served to every friend who comes...

With a voice that needed no sound, my friend spoke through the whole of the vast country. His hand and His fingers were full of the expression of each word. The fingers not only held fast the treasure of the hand, but they were also the means of discovery. The spirit of this discovery was in need of companions, and I could be such a companion. For that which remained to be discovered lay out beyond the finger-tips of God's person in a larger reality of being...

Long would be the telling of this aching hand whose heart shall hold friends and teach the art to many in that country that cannot be said, between whose spirits the potency of difference so gladly spreads to uncover and display a growth to all things new.

From The Hand of God by William Arkle

**

The Hand of God Prose-Poem - excerpted above - strikes me as an account of William Arkle's prime and (as it seems to me ) genuinely revelatory vision; which contains the compressed essence of his message, which he elaborated over a period of decades in various different forms - through prose narratives - factual and fictional, poetry, paintings, music, and (especially in the 1974 book A Geography of Consciousness) formal geometric/ engineering/ scientific/ philosophical analogies.

So the above excerpt contains:

The belief that we are in the hand of God (the theme of multiple paintings)

 Then the idea of a Mother in Heaven, as well as a Father

Then the key to all the elaborations - that the creator Father (and Heavenly Mother) wanted more than anything to have children who might grow towards divinity and eventually choose to become friends (in an extremely elevated sense of that word) with their Heavenly Father (and Mother).

The whole of creation is then set up with that purpose in mind. 

*

This matter of a Heavenly Mother is perhaps the most striking to Mainstream Christians, and is one of those undecided aspects of Mormonism.

Many Mormons believe there is a Heavenly Mother - who is our Mother in Heaven (some used to and a few probably still do believe there were several Heavenly Mothers), and this including Presidents of the Church and Apostles.

The divine parenthood is included in the language of that major (and wonderful) policy statement The Family: a Proclamation to the World - "Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents...".

Yet, this is not an official doctrine, nor from a specific church-wide revelation, nor a required belief; and it is specifically prohibited to pray to or worship Heavenly Mother (She is not regarded as equivalent to Heavenly Father).

Mormons are therefore free to believe in our Mother in Heaven, or not.

So what do I think, personally? 

*

I am not certain. Initially I believed in Mother in Heaven, then I found I did not (regarding God the Father as solitary and eternal before having children - God the Father as unique exception to the need for divine marriage.

Now I am inclined to believe again that we do have divine parents, although I am uncertain (and incurious) about the origin of Heavenly Mother.

*

(My tentative theory is that all pre-existent spirits are either male or female; and the first thing God the Father and primary creator did (as a male) was to take a pre-existent female spirit and endowed her with divinity. She always had and continued to have autonomous agency (free will) and they both chose eternal celestial marriage and became the primal parents - all other personages being their children.)

*

Also, I have found that Arkle's revelatory vision have enhanced my confidence that there is a Heavenly Mother - because:

1. I regard his primary and basic vision as a valid revelation (although I do not find all his elaborations and extrapolations and systematization to be compelling).

2. I see not the slightest sign that Arkle had any knowledge of Mormonism; yet his basic vision seems strikingly convergent with Mormonism - so his witness of a Heavenly Mother looks to me like independent corroboration.  

*

Having made that decision to believe, I find that it makes my heart leap with joy!

(Yet also a kind of fear and caution that I may be believing from self-gratification, and a fear of the contradictions with Mainstream Christianity.)

Yet the joy wins - and the simple symmetry between Mortal and Divine parents is a lovely thing.

*

Hierarchy in Heaven

*

The modern world is so permeated with egalitarianism that we cannot think straight.

Because reality is not egalitarian;  reality is hierarchical.

Especially, Heaven is hierarchical.

And this is profoundly important to Christian life on earth.

Indeed, the purpose of life on earth substantially depends on Heaven being hierarchical.

*

If Heaven was not hierarchical, then life after death would ultimately be dichotomous (salvation or damnation, heaven or hell, all or nothing) and life on earth would be drained of meaning except to ensure that one ended-up on the right side of the line.

If Heaven was egalitarian, then (once the soul was in heaven) there would be no difference whatsoever between a Saint and and a last-moment-repented sinner - leading to the question of why bother to struggle, to practice the virtues: why strive to be a Saint?

*

There are two matters to consider: salvation and theosis.

In a sense, salvation is 'easy': we are told it is 'merely' a matter of believing in one's heart that Jesus Christ is Lord.

But what then?

What about all the rest of a Christian life with which the Church is concerned? What about prayer? What about religious practices? Living by the Law.

What does all this achieve? Is is merely a matter of insurance?

*

The answer is simple: Heaven is hierarchical, and once salvation is attained then life on this earth is (crudely put) about attaining the highest possible rank in Heaven.

This is what the Eastern Orthodox Church calls 'theosis' - the main purpose of a Christian life - the process of becoming more God-like while on earth, the process of coming into closer communion with God.

The highest attainable Heavenly rank is Sainthood.

And while still alive on earth, a Saint will live both on earth and simultaneously in Heaven; a Saint experiences Heaven while still on earth (his head in Heaven while his feet walk the earth).

*

Why am I so sure that Heaven is hierarchical? Because that is what we are told: not once but many times.

Angels are arranged in a hierarchy.

The Old Testament prophets are arranged in a hierarchy (with some accorded higher rank - such as Abraham, Moses, Isaiah).

The Saints are arranged in a hierarchy (with some accorded higher rank - such as Mary the Mother of God, St John the Baptist - and among more modern Saints and martyrs, some are accorded a higher degree of veneration).

Heaven is permeated by hierarchy.

If that bothers us, then that is our problem.

*

Christian life, then, is first of all a matter of salvation: but once salvation is attained then it is a matter of steps towards, or away-from, communion with God.

That is the main job of life.

And rank in Heaven is (roughly) a matter of where this process has reached at the time of death.

After death, the possibility for changing rank in heaven more-or-less ceases: in Heaven we remain what we have become while on earth.

*

However, the Christian does not know while on earth exactly what rank he will have in Heaven.

And indeed, there is the big, constant problem of spiritual pride to contend with - whereby the striving for higher Heavenly rank may be subverted by the desire for spiritual status while on earth.

Spiritual pride is the desire for recognition (while on earth) that one possesses a more advanced degree of spirituality than is actually deserved.

Pride can force a wedge between spiritual status as recognized by the (inevitably corrupt) Church on earth, and the reality of Heaven.

And spiritual pride can mean that we believe that while on earth we have the power to discern our own deserved spiritual rank in Heaven.

Ultimately, this can lead to damnation - hence the pitfalls of striving for Sainthood, temptations so well recognized in the Orthodox tradition.

*

Furthermore, we know that the hierarchy of Heaven is almost the reverse of the hierarchy on earth (the rich man rated lower than the poor man, the humblest ranked highest etc.)

This is not a matter of precise inversion of earthly hierarchy - because theosis is a matter of free will, of choices; but that the higher one's status on earth, the harder it is to attain high status in Heaven.

*

Hence the traditions of Holy poverty, Holy asceticism, and Holy fools.

To be poor and humble, to suffer, to be regarded as a fool and to be devout is at least correlated with the highest rewards in Heaven.

(And vice versa.)

So these are things that those highest in status on earth need to do to increase the chance of being justly rewarded by higher rank in Heaven.

*

What does high rank in Heaven actually mean, and why should we want it? Would it not be enough to have the lowest rank?

These are deep questions to which we apparently do not have such clear answers.

The best answer may be along the lines that we get what we want: when we are full of pride then we do not want the closest communion with God for eternity; and we will get what we want to the degree that we want it.


*

"Masculinity" and "femininity" versus the actual person of Mother in Heaven

While I assume that God is Dyadic (a Heavenly Father and Mother) - this is something I have not really grasped, not does it correspond much with daily experience. 

Partly this may be because we Christians are intended to relate primarily to Jesus, rather than the primary creator; but partly it is because I tend to get "hung-up" on inaccurate and unhelpful assumptions relating to principles, rather than persons. 

An example of an unhelpful/ misleading conceptualization would be that of Coleridge's "polarity" between "two contrary forces, the one of which tends to expand infinitely ["masculine], while the other strives to apprehend or find itself in this infinity [feminine]". 

One such assumption is that habit of thinking of male and female in terms of being specific exemplifications of those abstractions: "masculinity" and "femininity"... Abstractions that are somehow floating unattached beyond time and space, and sort-of imposing-themselves-upon Beings (as it were to make them men, or women)...! 

Really; things must be otherwise. 

Our Heavenly Parents are those two Beings who (in actuality, not by any prior necessity) first committed to eternal love; and on that basis began divine creation. 

It is their two natures, originating as two Beings, that ramify through all of creation since.  

Thus male and female both structure and power creation; but in this personal way - derived from actual living, conscious, developing Beings; and not therefore in terms of abstract metaphysical forces or fields or tendencies. 

As (always?) with metaphysical realities, it is not possible to derive the metaphysics from empirical specifics (such as actual men and women) - nor is it possible to derive any particular empirical specifics from the metaphysical assumptions. 

If the universe truly is derived from a dyadic God; then that universe includes everything that exists, has existed, or could exist - and this reality (this Primary Creation) in which we dwell; includes not just divine creation, but also entropy/death and purposive evil. 

What this seems to mean - among many other things! - is that our experience of Mother in Heaven ought not to be pre-conceptualized in terms of an ideal earthly-mortal Mother, nor any other archetypal female conceptualization. 

Of course, if that is what we have decided in advance that we will find, then that is what we will find - and any female archetype really is there; but only as a selective, hence distorted, part of the reality. 

This stricture applies both to Goddess conceptualizations; and to the Blessed Virgin Mary - whom I regard as ultimately a selective and distorted representation of the reality of the actual person of Mother in Heaven.

(Albeit the veneration/worship of the Mary, Mother of Jesus has - in some times and places - been very valuable as such; and IMO far preferable overall to an exclusively "masculine" conceptualization of God.)

I think the difficulties of you and I experiencing the person of Mother in Heaven are therefore partly due to the nature of God the Creator - who is not personal in this world, in the way that Jesus Christ is personal; partly it is due to the ultimately-dyadic nature of God (and the consequent difficulty of disambiguating Father and Mother, who are necessarily participating-in each-other); and partly due to our usually false expectations concerning what She is like.   

So, what is She like? 

The best answer is: She is like who-She-is. 

...Which can be known - as here on earth - by personal experience, by getting-to-know a person. 

But She is not to be known in terms of exemplifying a list of supposed-female attributes, nor can any list of attributes validly communicate her reality.

What is Heaven like?... A place of uniqueness of nature and creativity, harmonized by love

One of the difficulties of describing Heaven in detail is that people are so different. 

Heaven is the resurrection of actual individual people - and since these people remain their original selves (but elevated to the divine) then Heaven cannot be summarized any more easily than people. 

Consider the question: What are people like? Any accurate answer you gave to that question would fail to capture the specifics of actual people, and would necessarily be very generalized indeed - and probably very abstract. 

Because all people are different - so much so, that (except with respect to specific traits - like differences between men and women, younger and older) no two people are alike. 

Consider the people you know best - probably your family. All my grandparents were different characters, each an individual, each distinct from each other - and add-in my mother, father, brother, sister, son and daughter and there is a collection of unique individuals. There are some family and social resemblances of course; but fundamentally and very clearly, each is absolutely unique. 

Add-in those who have been intense or close friends across my life, and consider them as well. Each friend was a distinct person - had an unique 'flavour'; and for none of them could I think of anybody else in the world who he or she was really 'like'. 

Heaven is populated by people - and people who are more themselves in Heaven than on earth - because divinity raises up the real self while discarding the passively absorbed or expediently inculcated social 'personality' aspects. 

And it is only in these 'personality' aspects - the product of socialization, environment, propaganda, fashion etc - that Men appear to be superficially similar. When we get to know somebody, we see past these temporary common traits - and that is the case in Heaven.   

So your Heaven will be different from my Heaven according to our different fundamental nature - just as your life is fundamentally different from mine, here on earth. 

Indeed, I know of nobody, have heard of nobody, who lives as I do (or thinks as I do) - even in this mortal life! How much more this will be the case in Heaven, when the necessities of mortality are gone. 

Heaven differs according to those with whom we are most associated - and/ including those whom we most love; because although Heaven is the place of love - that does not mean 'equality' of love, since love is of its nature unique between persons. 

We do not love any two people in The Same way, nor to the same degree - because love is two unique divine souls in relationship. Each love is unique in quality, as well as varying in strength. 

Your life and work in Heaven will be even-more-different from others people's lives and works than it is here on earth; because all that generic stuff about jobs, sustaining the body, dealing with bureaucracy, the effects of mass media etc will be gone. 

Presumably; in Heaven my life will be shaped, but even more so than now, by the nature of my creativity - and this is extremely different from the creativity of nearly everybody I have met or heard of (and identical with none). 

By 'my creativity' I mean what I actively want to participate in, and which is a never failing source of satisfaction: the only never failing source of satisfaction in this mortal life. 

Creativity by this meaning is a word for the distinctive engagement of our real selves with God's creation. In this sense: creativity is the only activity that never palls. 

Hence: creativity is the only activity fit for eternity. 

I know enough to see that what absolutely fascinates me in this respect is of near indifference to nearly everybody else (nearly- but not every- body else - which sharing is what makes creativity valuable). Also, what other people find endlessly (eternally) absorbing often leaves me pretty indifferent. 

In other words; in Heaven our lives will be more different from each other than they are on earth - because we will be more different, because our lives will be shaped by those who (most) love; and because we will be expressing our individual creative nature. 

In Heaven there will be no homogeneity at all! 

It is only on earth that cohesion is imposed by making people 'the same'; whereas in Heaven all coheres by love.

So in Heaven we can and shall be as different from each other, and do such different things from each other, as might be imagined to happen in the largest and most (wholly) loving extended family, village, college or workplace. 

Letter from a Mother in Heaven

Expanding on :
http://www.jrganymede.com/2016/01/09/mother-in-heaven-is-feminism-delaying-the-fullness-of-this-doctrine/
And complementary to:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/letter-from-your-heavenly-father-part.html
I have the following intuitions, which could and probably should be regarded as something like a fantasy fiction rather than theology.
**


My Dear Child,

I feel a need to write this letter because I am grieved at the misery and despair of so many of my children in their earthly lives - your loneliness and isolation. My hope is that knowing a little more about me, and learning of the love I always have for you, will help you through the adolescent trials of mortality, and inspire you to make the choice to return as adults to dwell again in Heaven.

It may be helpful for you to know something of the history of the long and loving relationship between us, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, to know the reason why you hear so little about me during your mortal existence - why we encourage you to speak directly with God your Father, and to think much on your Brother Christ, but not - as a rule - to focus your attention on me.

Your Heavenly Father and I are the original co-creators and rulers of creation - but we have different areas of responsibility. Briefly, your Father is more concerned with 'creation' and I with 'generation'.

Your Father made the universe, and - with him - your Brother Jesus made the earth and then gave you the possibility of resurrection to eternal life. You may wonder what I was doing all this time? The simplest answer is that my special responsibility was with you spirit children, during the long ages of your pre-mortal sojourn in Heaven.

As you know, I am your spiritual mother - it was through my divine parturition that you transformed from being merely unaware primordial 'intelligences' to persons; but at first you were 'spiritual babies' and only gradually became more mature as pre-mortal spirits.

Somewhat like an earthly mother, it was my particular job to nurture and care for you during pre-mortal life, when you were developing and growing as spirit children.

Clearly some of you have hazy memories of the blissfulness of that time, the era when you were new-born or young and dependent child spirits - when you were barely self-aware, knew little of the past or future, but lived in a an eternal joyous present, a surrounding atmosphere of sustaining love.

You and I may never again experience the un-self-conscious bliss of that time of early spiritual childhood - and that is bittersweet for me, as it is for you.

But it is our plan and hope that you will grow beyond that to develop towards becoming like your Brother Jesus Christ - who lives and works with your Father and I; in other words, that you will become independent, self-aware god-children who will - from your achieved freedom, power and autonomy - choose to return and dwell with us as divine friends, participating in the great and endless work of loving creation.

And ultimately, that you may eventually have spirit children of your own - so that we all may dwell together as a loving extended and ever-growing family.

So, as pre-mortal spirits you lived constantly in my presence for many ages; but you grew, and developed, and eventually you decided to venture into mortal life and join the plan of salvation: of mortality and resurrection.

Then you made the brave step: you voluntarily left behind the reality of that atmosphere of sustaining love, and your left behind your continuous awareness of me. This was necessary in order for you to experience and develop your own independent selves, something which was not possible in the conditions of pre-mortal life.

My deepest hope is that you will pass through the painful isolation of spiritual adolescence during your mortal life on earth; and be resurrected to spiritual adulthood. That is my wish - that you will separate from me, in order to return - but to freely choosing to return.

I know that mortal life is not always as anticipated, and some of you - having tasted the isolation of autonomy - want nothing more than to return to the un-self-conscious bliss of our pre-mortal child life together. Since I cannot, and would not wish to, coerce you - but only to move forward step-by-step with your full consent and willingness - and it is your choice, you can return to your former state and remain in that situation until such a time as you are ready and willing to move on.

Otherwise, it may assist your time of learning by experience to know that although we are currently separated; I am lovingly concerned with you every moment and every step of your life. In a thousand invisible ways that you can scarcely imagine, I help you - nearly always without drawing your attention to the fact. I am aware of, and consoled by, your prayers and meditations to the Father and Son.

Be assured: I rejoice in your happiness and spiritual progress, I feel your sufferings, and I am most deeply worried by your hostility and rejection and the resulting despair.

And I yearn for nothing more than your safe return as mature, grown-up sons and daughters.


With all my love,
Your Mother in Heaven

The Mother Goddess delusion - trascendental inversion with reference to Neolithic temples (etc)

*
The idea that ancient societies were Matriarchal and worshipped a Mother Goddess has been extremely popular in neo-pagan circles for about five generations. I certainly used to accept it - having imbibed it from Robert Graves The White Goddess, and seen much the same thing seemingly-confirmed in other literary, anthropological and archaeological works.

It isn't true, as a matter of fact. Or at least there is no objective evidence for it - or at least nothing that would count as evidence in other discourses.

*
But leaving facts and their interpretation aside, it is clearly psychologically false as well - in the sense that there is zero subjective plausibility to a Mother Goddess worshipping Matriarchy. Such a society can neither be imagined nor depicted with plausibility, conviction and depth (and there are plenty of failed attempts - including those by Graves himself).

Or, perhaps, more exactly such a society cannot be depicted as the good, wholesome, 'golden age' kind of place that its devisers and believers hoped for.

*

The Mother Goddess/Matriarchy people were and are motivated by a very obvious (and often explicitly stated) anti-Christian, anti-men animus - so that the desirable societies they discover/ devise and advocate have features in opposition to what they suppose are intrinsic to Christian Patriarchies.

But the only convincing Matriarchies in fact and fiction (and I mean real and robust societies - not little recreational clubs) are those run by evil and/or insane goddesses and priestesses who implement cults of blood sacrifice, lust, torture, death - something like the Thugs, or She (who must be obeyed). These do not worship a benign, loving Mother goddess, but an evil female demon - a prima donna of wilfulness, spite, and cruelty.

*

Another reason why there never was a society which worshipped a supreme Mother Goddess who was loving and good; was that IF there was such a supreme Mother Goddess, she certainly would NOT want to be worshipped. Or, put is another way, worship would be an inappropriate attitude or relationship to a good Mother Goddess.

As an adherent of Mormon theology, I believe that the sex difference, male and female, goes all the way down; it is a fundamental and structural organizing principle of reality; and this is reflected by there being a Mother in Heaven, as well as a Heavenly Father.

However, the sexes are not symmetrical, but complementary - and while a relationship that could reasonably be called worship of the Father is appropriate and necessary (although requiring further definition of what constitutes 'worship') - this is not the case for Heavenly Mother. The proper relationship is of an entirely different nature - and a nature which seems intrinsically inexplicit.

(This position has consistently been supported by the LDS General Authorities, who clearly state that Mother in Heaven should not be formally worshipped nor prayed-to - although she is and should be loved, honoured and celebrated.)

This is just how it is. It is not accurate to believe that a good and loving Mother could, should or would evoke the same attitudes as a good and loving Father; in Heaven as well as earth.


*

Which is a roundabout way of discussing Neolithic temples- stone circles, hilltop earthworks and large ritual pathways. These are so obviously sky focused; astronomically orientated; sun, moon  and stars-worshipping temples (circular, like the horizon - un-roofed - positioned with reference to celestial objects) that it seems silly to argue the matter.

And yet many people purport to believe that the Neolithic temples are dedicated to the Earth Mother Goddess - a good, wholesome, neo-pagan hippy kind of goddess.

I don't know how anyone could stand in such a temple, look up at the sky and believe that it was dedicated to an earth deity! - but they apparently do, and in their droves.

Which just goes to show that radical, secular Leftist, politics gets everywhere, can shape anything and everything, and will always critique, subvert and finally invert it: in this instance, turning the nature, objective and direction of Neolithic worship literally upside-down.

*

Three obstacles to Christian meditation - and the difference between prayer and meditation (note added with specific relevance to Mormon Christians)

*
I believe that modern circumstances are such that meditation would benefit many, or most, Christians - but meditation is rather poorly understood, and there are at least three significant obstacles.

1. Some Christians regard meditation as bad

2. Meditation must usually be learned

3. Meditation is different from prayer (and also different from creative inspiration).

*

1. Is meditation a bad thing?

Some Christians regard meditation as a bad thing - and of course it may be a bad thing if it is done for bad reasons - personal power, wealth or status; to manipulate others for gain, for occult powers or something of that sort.

These are the situations where, instead of achieving communion with God, someone might instead be influenced by evil spirits or one sort of another; and their salvation may be threatened.

But if meditation is done for good reasons, it can do - and probably will do - good.

*

2. Meditation must be deliberate and purposive

Meditation is not something that comes naturally to everybody, and modern life is extremely hostile to the possibility of meditation - so unless someone deliberately sets out to meditate, makes time for it, creates the right conditions, and then practices it - meditation is unlikely ever to happen.

*

3. Prayer versus meditation

Sometimes people suppose that prayer is meditation - but although there may be some overlap - the two are different.

Prayer is a conversation with God, but meditation is being with God.

Meditation is therefore a communion - and what comes from it is not so much information or guidance; but instead things more like motivation, sweetness, love, companionship, encouragement, inner strength.

These are things which most Christians need, or would at least benefit from - so, meditation should probably be given more attention as an aspect of Christian life.

**

Note added 15 October 2014
*
Christians have been explicitly taught by divine revelation that prayers should be addressed to God the Father, and that Jesus Christ is an intermediary for these prayers (hence the phrases such as 'in the name of Jesus Christ' which are so often appended to prayers as a reminder of this fact).

Although it is not mandatory doctrine, many Mormons, including the modern General Authorities, have expressed a belief in Mother In Heaven - celestially wedded to God the Father - and they have also stated that we ought not to pray to Mother in Heaven (for the reason previously outlined).

But meditation is different from prayer because it is a state of being-with, and communing-with, God - and meditation is possible because we are God's children and God is within us.

This seems to say that both our Heavenly Parents are within us in a divine sense, including both God the Father and Mother in Heaven - just as both of our earthly parents are 'within us' in a genetic sense.

The implication is that when Mormon Christians mediate, they are in the presence of both Heavenly Father and Mother.

So this is apparently another significant difference between prayer and meditation (the one addressed to the Father via Son, the other to both Father and Mother); and it suggests the particular, unique value of Mormon Christian meditation - that by it, and perhaps only by it, may we come directly to know our Mother in Heaven.

*

Continued:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/christian-meditation-as-inward-directed.html *

Two irreconcilable concepts of Heaven - Platonic and Pluralistic

The traditional, orthodox concept of Heaven derives from ancient Greek philosophy - I shall call it Platonic - this can be summarised:

God - Creation - Beings

The first thing is God, alone - who does Creation - and late in Creation God makes Beings, including Man.  

For Christians; God is a God of Love, whose creation is a kind of gratuitous overflow of love: so we get

God-Love - Creation - Beings


By contrast, what I will call the Pluralist concept of Heaven - which is the one I believe to be true - can be summarised:

Beings - Love - Creation

The primordial situation is of many Beings, of whom two are are Heavenly Parents - Father and Mother.

Thus God is Dyadic, irreducibly Two and not a unity (or, the unity is of two always-distinct aspects, permanently-made a unity by Love); and it is from the Love between our Heavenly Parents that Creation comes into existence (Love, being the coherence and purpose of Creation; Love harmonising the diverse elements of Creation). So we get:

Beings-God - Love - Creation


The Platonic Heaven seems to be associated with a wish for absolute, abstract, infinite perfection - and God is defined in such terms - including that God is undivided unity, of infinite power and presence (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent).

And this primal God creates everything else (everything other than God) from nothing (ex nihilo) instantaneously, in zero-Time (first Nothing, then Something... there can be no graduation or graduality) - including Beings, including Men.

In a Platonic Heaven, therefore, Creation remains entirely God's business, and nothing/ nobody else can contribute to primary Creation (only to secondary details within Creation). Also Heaven is perfect, so there is nothing for Men to contribute to it. Also primary Creation happens in zero-Time.

The Platonic Heaven is essentially contemplative: Man has nothing necessary or useful to Do. Man enjoys heaven, but does not add to it (because it is perfect). In Platonic Heaven; we may express gratitude, worship, may do many things - but none of them are necessary, none make any qualitative difference to Heaven.

In sum, the Platonic Heaven, is a state not a 'process'. It is a state of being, a state of communion with God, of bliss... but essentially it is static - there is no dynamic to Platonic Heaven - because movement comes from difference, from desire, from deficit... and this cannot be because the Platonic Heaven is perfection.   


In distinction, the Pluralistic Heaven in a world of Love, but not of perfection. Love is understood as itself dynamic ('in' Time: Time is a part of primary reality), between Beings; and therefore Heaven is a continuation of Creation - and for Christians it is a Heaven of active, personal participation in Creation.

This happens because Christians will be resurrected into Heaven, and resurrection is understood as becoming divine - immortal, indestructible, grown-up children of God. The actuality of God's primary Creation is opened-to the contributions of resurrected Men.

Part of pluralism is the uniqueness of each being, including of each man. Each resurrected Man brings to Heaven something unique, that did not previously exist in heaven. Every single individual Man who enters heaven therefore brings something irreplaceable to the ongoing Creation.

In sum everybody who is capable of Love and who chooses to follow Jesus, may be resurrected into heaven; and each such person has something unique and irreplaceable to contribute to God's ongoing work of Creation.

The Pluralistic Heaven is not only-contemplative (although contemplation is surely possible, and part of things) - but is active dynamic and open-endedly creative: a growing Heaven. And this Creation of Men is included in the primary and divine Creation.

Man's unique and individual contribution is woven-into Creation permanently, forever. And this is made possible by Love.

It is Love that harmonises God's creation with the contributions of many individual and unique Men - resurrected Men joining in increasing numbers with time.


The Pluralistic Heaven is not perfect, it is not closed, it is not complete, it is not outside Time... on the contrary Time (sequential, continuous, linear) is an assumed part of reality. The Pluralistic Heaven is, therefore, developing, open-ended, growing... Heaven is in-movement, is changing, has a past and a future; and changing, expanding personnel - each with an unique contribution to make to the whole. 


So, we can see that the Platonic Heaven and the Pluralistic Heaven are very different places. While one may be contained within the other - only one or the other (or neither) could ultimately be true - since they each have extremely different ultimate metaphysical assumptions. 

Metaphysical perfection is a dyad (Thoughts on our Mother in Heaven)

*
It may be the most profound distinction of Mormon metaphysical theology that the perfection of Good is seen as a dyad, as two not one, as duality and not unity - man and woman in celestial marriage.

This is extraordinarily rare in world thought - every other thought system of which I know, no matter how much sexual difference is respected and celebrated, ultimately regards it as a imperfect state, an expedient state, a stage on the evolutionary route to un-sexual one-ness.

But Mormonism seems to regard sexual difference as basic to the structure of reality. Mormonism is absolutely serious about Love being the primary reality of the universe - Love takes the place of power, force, and physics - the Mormon universe is 'biological', or rather 'psychological', all the way down.

*

I say Mormonism 'seems' because this set of implications has not yet been very deeply explored, and probably does not feature much (at present, anyway) in the lives of Mormons - who are apparently no more overtly 'metaphysical' than most other people, and probably less so than Roman Catholics (for example).

But the extraordinary implications of Mormonism can be seen in the seldom publicly mentioned, not worshipped nor prayed-to, but officially-endorsed, widely-believed and canonical, personage of God the Father's eternal consort: Mother in Heaven.


http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=mother+in+heaven

Mother in Heaven lies behind Mormon theology as a vast, unexplored hinterland - depths beyond depths of implication. She is almost silent, seldom mentioned - but a personage of infinite consequence.

*

My understanding is that Her time has not yet come, in a sense, presumably because the Prophets have not received revelations to make, or endorse, the unveiling of this vastly important subject: it is a time of waiting.

One apparently 'unavoidable' consequence involves the wife of Jesus Christ (?pre-mortal, mortal, post-mortal?) about which nothing has explicitly been said in scripture - and very, very little even hinted by the most speculative implication - yet which does seem to be entailed by the metaphysical framework of reality and in particular by the requirements for theosis, for the highest exaltation.

All this could change at any time - for individuals by private personal revelation, and for the church as a whole if-or-when the Prophets receive further information and instruction.

Such a change would - IF it happened - be like a wave of crystallization spreading who-knows-where, or like new energies of new kinds welling-up and flooding the world; a change of incalulable consequence.

*

The marvellous originality and profundity of the Mormon theology of eternal marriage

I have given-up on trying to persuade others of the wonders of Mormon theology! Instead, I will here merely vent some of my enthusiasm. 

Even Mormons regard their theology as very-much subordinate to specifics of this world practice in the CJCLDS. 

And hardly anybody else outside the CJCLDS (although, a few!) is sufficiently interested even to engage with the subject - often because of ineradicable ignorant hostile prejudice. 

But for me, I don't know that I have come across any richer source of metaphysical originality and genius across the span of Christendom, as in Mormon theology*. 

One of the greatest insights of Mormon theology was that God (The Creator) is the eternal and loving marriage of Father in Heaven and Mother in Heaven; in other words God is a dyad, not one. 

Properly understood and explored; this can be an astonishingly rich insight into the fundamental nature of reality - transcending centuries, indeed millennia, of false antitheses between monotheism and polytheism. 

The Mormon concept of God can be the basis of a positive metaphysical concept in its own right (not some combination or compromise of pre-existing concepts); as such, it needs to be understood in its own right. 

The Mormon church (the CJCLDS) has confused and distorted matters - in this as in several other ways - by claiming that such eternal "sealed" marriage is possible among mortal men and women, here on earth; and restricted to the administration and approval of the CJCLDS. 

This is understandable, perhaps it is and was inevitable - yet we must distinguish the reality and truth of things, as separable from the compromises and practicalities of organizing and maintaining A Church, in this world. 

But this is not merely something that demonstrably fails in practice (since many sealed marriages have ended in divorce); but is clearly impossible in theory, due to the basic nature of human beings and our life in this entropic and evil world. 

The basic nature of this mortal life cannot be transcended by mortal Men - and the fact of Men organizing into churches. 

Making claims of the church's transcendent power, or that church rules for living are mapped onto post-mortal and heavenly realities, are simply false - because they contradict the nature of this-world; and contradict too the whole rationale of Christianity as entailing death and resurrection. 

We cannot make Heaven on earth - else there would be no need for Heaven.

(And Jesus Christ insisted that there was need for Heaven, and by his work showed why and how.) 

We cannot replicate the eternal realities of Heaven with our mortal minds and bodies - and claiming that we can, acts against the core realities of what Jesus did and why. 

Churches - and their rules and rituals - do not control our access to Heaven; and indeed, the behaviours of church members (since 2020, especially) demonstrates that nobody really believes that they do. 

(They are merely too concerned at the implications of acknowledging they don't believe - which double-negative is not the same as - and much weaker than - positive belief. )

So, to understand the profound truth of the Mormon theology of God, requires that Mormons (as well as other Christians) set-aside the confusions related to how such spiritual realities are crystallized into material and mortal terms here in our lives on earth. 

Yet, our aspirations can and should be heavenly and spiritual - even as we acknowledge that their practice is mortal and corruptible (not just corruptible, but actually inevitably corrupt-ed - to some degree, sooner or later - by entropy and death - even when not by evil). 

(Thus the desire and aspiration towards eternal marriage in the Mormon sense is a new (as of 1830) beautiful and life-enhancing one - and a vital corrective to the destructive (indeed nihilistic) "mainstream" Christian doctrine that marriage is necessarily a temporary expedient that is dissolved by death, combined with the assertion that "there is no marrying in Heaven".) 

This aspiration is true and good; although eternal marriage cannot be actually attained until after we are resurrected and have become wholly and eternally committed to live by love. 

It requires resurrection to be able to make eternal commitments; for the reason that resurrection is itself the foundational eternal commitment - i.e. to live wholly by live (and leave-behind sin). 

Earthly marriage, and the innate desires and motivations we have in relation to it - even when we may be unable to find it during this mortal existence, provide the basis for understanding the reality of Heavenly marriage; and of the original, originative, creative nature of God (originating, that is, in love - with creation, including but not restricted to procreation, understood as a manifestation of love.)

When Joseph Smith had his vision of the dyadic nature of God, he was both a prophet and a philosopher of genius; but when he tried to make this vision a concrete reality among the members of the new Mormon church, he was merely a gifted and able leader, a kind of "king and judge" perhaps. 

Furthermore, the nature of God as from a Heavenly marriage need not be, and I think is not, a template for every man and woman - past, present and future. 

Christianity is for individual persons, and entails that each individual person affiliates to divine creation; I don't see that this entails that everybody ultimately wants the same thing - indeed that would seem vanishingly unlikely. Since each is unique - surely there will "always" be genuine exceptions? 

(As well as those making excuses to justify special treatment!) 

And what we be the point of a creation consisting of everybody doing the same thing! Multiplicity would then have no function or reason!

Another of Joseph Smith's great prophetic insights was that Heaven was A Family, in a literal as well as metaphorical sense. And a loving family - even here on earth - can and often does incorporate many kinds of life-motivations and self-chosen roles, among its loving members. 

Resurrected and eternal individual men and women will develop what is distinctive in their original and innate nature - and this may or may not lead them into eternal marriage of a kind analogous to that of God, our Heavenly Parents and the Primary Creators, and thence to procreating spiritual children - in the way that Joseph Smith seemed to regard as the proper goal of all people. 

I include this, not because I am necessarily correct in contradicting this particular aspect of Joseph Smith's revelations - but as example fo how we ought to engage with them, as realities.

Realities we may know-about now, and experience temporarily and partially in mortal life; but realities that are only do-able in resurrected post-mortal life    

 

*For all its essential insights (at least, they have been essential for me) there are significant deficiencies in Mormon theology. Two of the most important are an incoherent and double-negative understanding of Jesus's real vital importance and the true nature of his work, which error was (apparently) inherited from mainstream Protestant theology. Another mistake - I believe - is also inherited; which is to regard the Holy Ghost as a separate personage from Jesus Christ - which (as with mainstream Christianity) makes the HG into a nebulous abstract entity with no clear provenance or role. 

The evilness of evil (in a pluralist universe)

*

The reason that mainstream theologians have persisted for 2000 years with monism (and an Omni- concept of God) despite the insoluble and fundamental problems these cause for Christianity is that they want to be able to say that God is necessarily good - i.e. that the goodness of God is built-into reality, part of the existence of the universe; and therefore that to oppose God is to be irrational (i.e. they want to be able to state that evil is simply irrational).

(Note: this doesn't actually work, because it makes evil into a kind of insanity rather than a deliberate choice of evil. For instance, Satan could not rationally choose to rebel against God and reject salvation, and because he is a high angel who would know for certain the terrible consequences of rebellion; this framework makes Satan into a kind of lunatic or demented creature, rather than truly-evil).

Pluralism would regard this as a mistaken purpose in theology since it makes a universe where choice is meaningless and Man is a puppet. Such a universe is incompatible with Christianity.

(i.e. Incompatible in a common sense way. But obviously if theology is allowed to get-away-with recourse to paradox and mysticism then anything is possible - and paradox and mysticism have duly been built-into mainstream intellectual Christianity since not long after the death of the Apostles - e.g. in describing the nature of Christ, the Holy Trinity and the operations of free will.)

*

As I understand it, pluralism starts with assumptions and a situation that 'just is' and cannot be (or does not need to be) explained further - and the main assumption is the God is God - He is just there.

(And, for Mormons, so is Mother in Heaven 'just there' - because reality is dyadic, male and female are two complementary and irreducible parts that together make unity. ^See note below)

God is inside the already existing universe of reality (matter or 'stuff') which is also 'just there' and has certain properties which are understood by us as the laws of nature including the principles of beauty and morality.

We Men (and other intelligences) were also 'just there' but as some kind of essence that lacked self-awareness.

*

God (and, for Mormons, Mother in Heaven) then made us into self-aware 'children of God' so that now we are all related to God and to each other - relationships (or one enormously large family with multiple sub-families) is the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves.

Therefore, 'good' is to choose to live in accordance with these relationships, as established by God; evil is to reject these relationships and aim to live as solitary and self-sufficient gods. (This is pride.)

*

So evil is a choice. It is not necessarily irrational, it is not necessarily dishonest - except that it seems always to involve a denial of the true situation and of our debt to God - but evil can be a hatred and rejection of the divine families in which we find ourselves - perhaps a hatred of God for forcing us to become self-conscious (and therefore liable to suffer) and to having saddled us with unasked-for responsibilities to our divine parents and siblings.

I think it is at least conceivable that a person might simply choose to reject self consciousness, and/or family ties  and aspire to live utterly alone. By the mercy of God this state could be made into an unselfconscious bliss; but this state too might be rejected and the person would then live in 'hell' of utter and self-imposed eternal and self-aware solitude.

The evil of this 'hell' comes from rejecting divine relationships but clinging to selfhood; rejecting gratitude and responsibility towards God but clinging to God-given powers.

*

The primary moral decision in the history of reality was therefore that God (and Mother in Heaven) unilaterally decided to 'make' us into self-conscious personages, to make us into His children. His motive for this was love and our own benefit, just as the motive of earthly parents for 'making' children should be love and the children's own benefit - nonetheless it was unilateral, and is irreversible.

Consequently, because God is loving; I think it must have been the case that God made provision for us to opt-out of this situation in which we find ourselves, and to return to primordial unawareness and unpersonhood.

This is why I believe God has made provision for 'Nirvana' i.e. what feels-like loss of self/ personhood, and reabsorption into the blissful state of His goodness.

This is not an actual stripping away of our status as Sons and Daughters of God - that is irreversible - but it does allow a non-evil choice to reject the basic situation in which we find ourselves - to reject self-awareness, incarnation, intelligence, power and everything else. 

To 'return' to original un-consciousness.

*

But these are all choices: suboptimal, sad - but self-chosen and self-inflicted. They are simply a consequence of the reality of agency/ free will.

The evilness of evil is really about the gratuitous spitefulness of trying to wreck the self-consciousness and divine family relationships which other people want and have chosen; of trying to persuade other people to inhabit 'hell' as some kind of eternal consolation for the misery of one's own choice of hell. 

*

^The other explanation for God in a pluralist universe is an infinite regress - i.e. that God the Father and Heavenly Mother are children of previous Gods, are children of previous Gods, and so on forever. But this amounts to the same thing as saying 'just there' - it is merely substituting a process which is 'just there' for entities which are 'just there'.

The character of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel

The author of the Fourth Gospel (who I believe to be the risen Lazarus) is the only person in the Bible who claims to be a witness of the last three years of Jesus's life and teachings, and a disciple. 

He is the only one who knew Jesus personally, loved and was loved-by him; and so is (presumably) the single person in the best position to provide a true account of Jesus's character during the period of his ministry, death and resurrection. 

In the first Chapters of the Fourth Gospel, there is initially more about John (the Baptist) than Jesus, and more of his words. 

Jesus only gradually gets-into the narrative from a few phrases of reported conversation with the disciples and his mother, and the account of the 'scourging' of the Temple; until the interaction with Nicodemus. 

Even from these snatches of conversation, it seems that Jesus is enigmatic, even mercurial. He does not answer direct questions; but instead responds with a further question, or a 'riddle' or a 'story'. 

This, together with the violent actions at the temple, depict Jesus as a confrontational personality: very much "in your face", regardless of whoever he is currently interacting with.  

But there is another side: Jesus as Prophet. These prophetic utterances are often prefaced with "Verily, Verily, I say unto you..."

The first is during the meeting with Nathaniel in Chapter One: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. 

Jesus here introduces the term "Son of man" for himself*. Again we can see that - even when teaching directly - by modern standards Jesus's speech is what we moderns might term poetic or symbolic (i.e. it means more than it says, and means several things at once). 

The truth of such prophetic statements is occult: i.e. hidden, non-obvious to mundane understanding. Thus; when teaching spiritually, Jesus employs a spiritual - unworldly, unpractical - form of language.   

Then, in Chapter 3, when when Jesus meets Nicodemus, we get a great outpouring of such vatic teachings. 

We get, indeed, the essence of Jesus's work and message distilled in its entirety. 

And different versions of this core-teaching recur several times throughout this Gospel - sometimes encapsulating in a verse or two; sometimes in an extended parable-teaching, such as "the feeding of the five thousand" or The Good Shepherd. 

The impression of Jesus as a character in the Fourth Gospel is very striking indeed! 

He is volatile, unpredictable, moody; fearless, elusive, direct, kind, harsh, empathic, highly intellectual, simple like a child - each as he discerns that the occasion demands. 

(A word for this personality type in the classical-medieval astrological system is "Mercurial" : as described by CS Lewis in The Discarded Image, and explicated by Michael Ward in The Narnia Code.)

And then Jesus may suddenly - as it were - stand tall and speak from the great prophetic heights of one who is the 'only begotten Son of God".

...Which I take to mean the first and only among all of God's children who fully understands, and is in full accord-with The Creator's divine purposes and will. 

The One who is uniquely capable of offering a path to all men, all those who are (unlike himself) 'sinners - out-of-accord with God and desirers of death... 

Offering all such men a path to everlasting life on the far side of death when they are Born Again; all this by the simple act of 'believing on' Him! That is (approximately) knowing who He is, and following him to Heaven - but after death, by being 'born-again' or resurrected:

[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

The "already" of to be "condemned already", means that this is not a threat of punishment - but a rescue from the otherwise inevitable fate of men before the time of Jesus: which was to die and descend, as discarnate "ghosts", to witless and depersonalized mere-existence in Sheol/ Hades/ the underworld. 

(There to await the coming of Jesus, and the coming of choice.)

Hell only emerged after Jesus, because Hell is the choice of those who know, but reject and oppose Jesus's offer and gift of resurrected eternal Heavenly life - which is a very different matter from passively having-imposed the default state of Sheol. 

* Chapter 3: [12] If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? [13] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. [14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: [15] That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 

Jesus is here saying, in vatic-poetic mode - that he himself is the Son of man who 'ascended up to Heaven' - when baptized by John and becoming fully-divine albeit mortal; having come 'down from heaven' as a man in perfect accord with God the Father; and therefore 'which is in heaven' even as he speaks with Nicodemus (heaven being a place or state of those Beings whose natures are in full and eternal harmony with God's creative will).  

Note added: It is often said that Jesus wants us to become more like him. The implication is that we ought to behave more like Jesus; model our behaviour on that of Jesus. I don't see it, it would anyway be impossible; and I do not believe it is true. Jesus wants us to believe-on and to follow him - but surely not to behave like him, nor have characters like his character. The essence of Christianity is resurrection, which is a wholly-good and eternal restoration of our-self! Heaven is full of unique characters, each contributing something unique hence vital: not populated by Jesus-copies! (Which would, if true, be redundant and render eternal life futile.)  

Letter from your Heavenly Father (Part Two)

*
My Dear Child,

Now you know that my creative purpose is to raise-up my children to a divine maturity, in hope that they will freely chose to become loving friends with me and with each other, perhaps I can now explain some of the features of your mortal life, and especially its difficulties and suffering?

You are an eternal being, whose original essence goes back to the beginning of everything. This eternal essence is the basis of your fundamental autonomy, your free will, your ability to choose.

Because not everything about you was made, therefore part of you is independent of everything in the universe - including being independent of myself. You can be a first cause, an unmoved mover. To this extent you are unique: different from everybody and everything that ever has been.

On top of this, you have become a child of myself and your Mother in Heaven - we took this primal essence and added to it. We made you like us, self-aware: a personage. You are now a child of God, and this is the basis of your relation to myself, and all other people (past, present and future). To this extent you are intrinsically part of a family.

So you are unique but you are not alone. You do not need to strive to be unique, and you do not need to strive to be part of a web of relationships - these are given facts; they are already a part of your situation and the situation of everybody else.

So, although you are a child, very immature, flawed, weak and so on - nonetheless you are divine, invincible, eternal... and are at present on a path to higher divinity.

You have the potential to become a god of the same kind as myself, that is an 'adult' god, and to choose to enter into a full and adult relationship with me and your Mother in Heaven. That this may happen is our deepest yearning, and we have done everything possible to make it possible.

When I say you have potential to become a god like me, I do not want you to think about this in terms of power, but instead in terms of relationships.

You might imagine becoming a real and loving friend to a King of England or the President of the USA - or an Emperor of the world - they might want you as a friend, and you might be part of their families, you might work with them in collaboration on creative projects... but that does not make you personally a King, President or Emperor. You may be best friends, you may both be Men; but the King remains King, and you remain his subject.

That is how I want you to think about becoming divine, becoming a god, and having an adult friendship with me. It is not a matter of power, but a matter of love.

However your path is long, and intrinsically difficult. You are an infant god - a god, yes - yet an infant. As divine you are great, as a child you are weak - lacking in knowledge and strength, defective in goodness...

There is much you need to learn - and your learning must be practical and experiential, not merely theoretical. This is why life is and must be hard and full of difficulties, why it is a matter of trial and error - mistaking and repenting and trying again.

(There is a sense in which life necessarily resembles warfare, and fighting can only be learned by situations which include actual combat. Soldiering cannot be learned just from lectures at military college, nor only by drills, exercises and simulations exclusively. Real combat experience is essential.)

Furthermore, you must consent to learning at every step, and must continue to choose to continue the process. In this regard, ultimately, you cannot be coerced into learning or specific choosing; although you can of course be influenced - for good or for ill.

So, this is the basic nature of your situation, this is where you find yourself. This - where you are now.

And this is the situation which you previously chose in its general features  - although, obviously, you did not choose every specific aspect of your life - and many of these specific aspects are the consequence of other peoples choices- which are equally as real as your own.

You are probably wondering why you have to be told this.

The reason you did not already know all this stuff, is partly the fact that you did already know it, but mortal life on earth is so different from your previous Heavenly life that Heavenly knowledge is inaccessible in a similar way (and for similar reasons) as your dream life is scanty and fragmentary. That is, you may recall a few fragments, but most dreams are apparently forgotten, or cannot be made sense of, essentially because sleeping consciousness is so very different from waking.

Likewise your earlier state of Heavenly consciousness was extremely different from your current state of mortal consciousness. So you need to be reminded, again and again. And indeed life is full of such reminders - but you may have chosen to ignore or reject the reminders up until now.

Life is also full of falsehoods and distractions, and paths leading in wrong directions, which you have often chosen.

You are a mixed creature, life is a mixed business, there is much to learn - thus development is a long processes. But I hope you will agree that life is also real, important, and has an inspiring aim.

You are unique and you are free, and you are also surrounded by family and friends and helpers - some alive, some dead, some advanced in divinity; and I haven't even yet mentioned Jesus Christ! So, no matter what your current situation may be, the odds of ultimate victory are heavily, indeed irresistibly, stacked in your favour - if that is what you choose.


From your loving Father in Heaven

*